DOCSLIB.ORG

EVALUATING the IMPACT of OVERWEIGHT LOAD ROUTING on BURIED UTILITY FACILITIES By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EVALUATING the IMPACT of OVERWEIGHT LOAD ROUTING on BURIED UTILITY FACILITIES By 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-12/0-6394-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF OVERWEIGHT LOAD October 2011 ROUTING ON BURIED UTILITY FACILITIES Published: December 2011 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Edgar Kraus, Jeong Ho Oh, Emmanuel Fernando, Eric Yingfeng Li, Report 0-6394-2 Cesar Quiroga, and Nicholas Koncz 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project 0-6394 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2009–August 2011 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Evaluation of Overweight Load Routing on Buried Utility Plant URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6394-2.pdf 16. Abstract Overweight traffic movements can negatively affect pavement integrity and quality. However, it is less known to what degree buried utility facilities along and across the right of way are affected by these overweight loads, especially if the utility facility is aged, placed under an exception to the Utility Accommodation Rules (UAR), and/or subjected to repetitive loads. Routing decisions for repetitive overweight loads may be determined without consideration of cumulative impacts to utility infrastructure, particularly municipally owned lines that could be aged, accommodated under an exception, or of substandard materials. Given the growth in volume in overweight load (particularly mid-heavy and superload) permits, the adequacy of the UAR is unknown. The objectives of this project were to (a) provide a review of technical design and engineering requirements for utility accommodation in Texas, (b) provide an assessment of potential impact of overweight loads on buried utilities, (c) provide recommendations for a business process for TxDOT overweight routing coordination, (d) provide recommendations for changes to TxDOT manuals, (e) provide an assessment of UAR adequacy to deal with overweight loads on buried utilities, and (f) provide recommendations for changes to the UAR. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Utility Accommodation Rules, UAR, Utility No restrictions. This document is available to the Accommodation, Underground Utility, Utility public through NTIS: Damage, Pipes, Heavy Load Damage, Overweight National Technical Information Service Load Alexandria, Virginia 22312 http://www.ntis.gov 19. Security Classif.(of this report) 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 286 EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF OVERWEIGHT LOAD ROUTING ON BURIED UTILITY FACILITIES by Edgar Kraus, P.E. Associate Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Jeong Ho Oh Assistant Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Emmanuel Fernando Senior Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute Eric Yingfeng Li Assistant Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Cesar Quiroga, P.E. Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute and Nicholas Koncz Assistant Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute Report 0-6394-2 Project 0-6394 Project Title: Evaluation of Overweight Load Routing on Buried Utility Plant Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration October 2011 Published: December 2011 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DISCLAIMER The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation, nor is it intended for construction, bidding, or permit purposes. The engineer in charge of the project was Edgar Kraus, P.E. (Texas Registration #96727). The United States Government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was conducted in cooperation with TxDOT and FHWA. The researchers would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by many individuals at these agencies, in particular the following: • Randy Anderson. • John Campbell. • Frank Espinosa. • Raymond Hutchinson. • Justin Obinna. • Guy Sledge. • Stephen Stakemiller. • Duncan Stewart. • Dean Wilkerson. • Charon Williams. The researchers also wish to acknowledge the support provided by Jerry Le with the analysis of the overweight truck routing data. The research team also acknowledges the support provided by Gerry Harrison during the testing of buried utility pipes. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND TERMS ................................................... xvii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2.TECHNICAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILITY ACCOMMODATION .................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 UNDERGROUND UTILITY STRUCTURE TYPES AND MATERIALS .............................. 3 Underground Utility Structure Material Standards ................................................................. 4 UNDERGROUND UTILITY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS .................. 11 Embedment and Backfill ....................................................................................................... 11 Compaction ........................................................................................................................... 12 Casings .................................................................................................................................. 12 Depth of Cover ...................................................................................................................... 13 External Loads ...................................................................................................................... 13 REVIEW OF EXISTING PRACTICE FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES IN TEXAS ..................................................................................... 26 City of Grapevine Water Utility Systems ............................................................................. 27 City of Grapevine Water Sanitary Sewer System ................................................................. 30 City of North Richland Hills ................................................................................................. 33 City of Fort Worth ................................................................................................................ 36 City of Bedford ..................................................................................................................... 38 Exxon Mobile Pipeline Company ......................................................................................... 39 ATMOS Energy .................................................................................................................... 40 REVIEW OF MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ........... 40 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 40 Water Distribution ................................................................................................................ 41 Sanitary Sewers ..................................................................................................................... 51 Natural Gas/Liquid Petroleum Piping ................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER 3.DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES IN THE TEXAS UTILITY ACCOMMODATION RULES ........................................................ 57 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 57 CURRENT UTILITY ACCOMMODATION RULES ............................................................ 57 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO UTILITY ACCOMMODATION RULES SINCE 1979 .... 61 Adopted Changes in 1982 (151) ........................................................................................... 61 Adopted Changes in 1989 (152) ........................................................................................... 61 Adopted Changes in 1990 (153) ........................................................................................... 65 Adopted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TRB Special Report 267: Regulation of Weights, Lengths, And
    Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths of Commercial Motor Vehicles SPECIAL REPORT 267 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2002 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* Chairman: E. Dean Carlson, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chairman: Genevieve Giuliano, Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board William D. Ankner, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Providence Thomas F. Barry, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee Michael W. Behrens, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin Jack E. Buffington, Associate Director and Research Professor, Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Sarah C. Campbell, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, D.C. Joanne F. Casey, President, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, Maryland James C. Codell III, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort John L. Craig, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads, Lincoln Robert A. Frosch, Senior Research Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Susan Hanson, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts Lester A. Hoel, L.A. Lacy Distinguished Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of State Speed Laws
    DOT HS 810 826 August 2007 Summary of State Speed Laws Tenth Edition Current as of January 1, 2007 This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................iii Missouri ......................................................138 Alabama..........................................................1 Montana ......................................................143 Alaska.............................................................5 Nebraska .....................................................150 Arizona ...........................................................9 Nevada ........................................................157 Arkansas .......................................................15 New
    [Show full text]
  • Dakota County Rural Economic Development Strategic Plan Adopted May 21, 2018
    Dakota County Rural Economic Development Strategic Plan 2017-2018 Acknowledgements & Contributors Dakota County Board of Commissioners Scott Love, Chair Antonio A. Gomez Martin V. Hohenstein Kevin W. Rohde William B. Rohde Dakota County Staff Joan Spencer, County Clerk Joe O’Neill, Dakota County P&Z Administrator Steering Committee Village of Emerson - Cathy Duncan, Village Clerk Village of Homer - Diane Rewinkel, Village Clerk Village of Hubbard - Lisa Bousquet, Deputy Village Clerk Village of Jackson - Donna Hirsch, Village Clerk City of Dakota City - Alyssa Silhacek, City Administrator City of South Sioux City - Kelly Flynn, Director of Economic Development City of South Sioux City – Lance Hedquist, City Administrator Dakota County Planning & Zoning – Jean Grove, Village of Hubbard Representative Dakota County Planning & Zoning – Christy Henjes, Lue Franco Dakota County Connections Program Coordinator - Jo Ann Gieselman Northeast Community College – Cynthia Hanson, Executive Director Siouxland Economic Development Corporation - Ken Beekley, Executive Vice President Siouxland Ethanol - Pam Miller, Board Chair Director of Industry & Investor Relations South Sioux City Area Chamber - Jim Steele, President South Sioux City School District - Todd Strom, Superintendent Wayne State College - Judith Scherer Connealy SIMPCO Staff Michelle Bostinelos, Executive Director Nicole Peterson, Regional Planner II Gabriel Appiah, Regional Planner I Joe Surdam, Regional Planner I *This study was funded by Nebraska Department of Economic Development Table
    [Show full text]
  • Roth Industrial Comprehensive Needs Assessment
    South Sioux City Overview Summary General Site Information • The site area is +/- 1,780 acres. • The site boundaries are as follows: • Northern Boundary: Interstate 129 • Eastern Boundary: C Avenue • Southern Boundary: Dakota City • Western Boundary: E Avenue and the Old Crystal Lake • Currently there are approximately 362 acres that have been or are being developed. Industries that are located within the site are Beef Products Inc. (BPI), CHS, Omega Industries, Richardson Milling, Tyson Foods, and Big Ox Energy. • Of the remaining 1,408 acres, 1264 acres are undeveloped with the remainder dedicated for transportation Right Of Way. • The undeveloped land parcels are owned by separate entities. The City of South Sioux City currently contains options on select properties. • A site location map is included in the appendix of this report. Site Topography and Floodplain Information • The site is generally flat. The developed areas mostly drain to Old Crystal Lake via the City of South Sioux City’s storm sewer system. • A review of the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps has been performed on the site. None of the site is within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Wetlands Information Construction activities that affect wetlands should be given special consideration. Wetlands have the potential to be classified as Waters of the State or Waters of the United States. Wetlands that are determined to be Waters of the United States (jurisdictional) are subject to review by the Army Corps of Engineers. Major impacts to existing wetlands that are jurisdictional must be permitted and will typically have a review period with the Corps of Engineers (six-to-nine months).
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    South Sioux City, NE Comprehensive Plan Adopted: July 24, 2017 Ordinance: 2017-12 Project #: 140310.00 2 | SOUTH SIOUX CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY COUNCIL Mayor Rod Koch Oscar Gomez, Council President Dennis Nelson John Sanders Dan Bousquet Jack Ehrich Bruce Davis Jason Bowman Carol A. Schuldt PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Martin Hohenstein John Koskovich Lyle Todd Arlyn Wilson Arlan Kuehn Gail Curry Brett Gotch Mike Wojcik Lance Morgan Robert Rapp CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Jack Ehrich, Chairman Gail Curry Angela Klemmensen Tom Luxford Lori Warner Kevin O'Dell Brett Gotch PLANNING CONSULTANTS - JEO CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Jeffrey B. Ray, AICP Kevin Andersen Tonya Carlson Clint Sloss Phil Luebbert Ethan Joy, PE BIG MUDDY WORKSHOP John Royster, FASLA, PLA Katie Swanson, ASLA, PLA SOUTH SIOUX CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 South Sioux City Profile 2 South Sioux City Envision 3 South Sioux City Achieve 4 South Sioux City Implement 5 South Sioux City 4 | SOUTH SIOUX CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1.1 City Overview 10 1.2 The Purpose of Comprehensive Planning 12 1.3 The Comprehensive Planning Process 12 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 Demographic Profile 16 2.3 Housing Profile 24 2.4 Economic and Employment 31 2.5 Community Facilities and Utilities 36 2.6 Parks and Recreation Plan 43 2.7 Existing Land Use 84 2.8 Natural and Environmental Conditions 86 2.9 Energy Element 90 3.1 Introduction 102 3.2 Focus Group Meetings 102 3.3 Town Hall Meetings 116 4.1 Introduction 120 4.2 Population Projection 120 4.3 Housing
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H 9309
    September 20, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE H 9309 are 67 percent effective in preventing brain in- The vote was taken by electronic de- Morella Rogers Tanner vice, and there wereÐyeas 419, nays 7, Murtha Rohrabacher Tate jury, exactly the type of injury that needs ex- Myers Ros-Lehtinen Tauzin pensive, long-term care. not voting 8, as follows: Myrick Rose Taylor (MS) Nadler Roth Most riders who incur these injuries are [Roll No. 679] Tejeda young people. That means the long-term care Neal Roybal-Allard Thomas Nethercutt Royce for such riders who incur severe injuries can YEASÐ419 Thompson Neumann Rush Thornberry Abercrombie DeLay Horn last for 20, 30, or even 40 years. And, in most Ney Sabo Thornton Ackerman Deutsch Hostettler Norwood Salmon Thurman cases, public sources, such as Medicaid, will Allard Diaz-Balart Houghton Nussle Sanders Tiahrt be paying the bills. Andrews Dickey Hoyer Oberstar Sanford This body is currently considering reforming Archer Dicks Hunter Torkildsen Obey Sawyer Torres the Medicaid Program. If we care about con- Armey Dingell Hutchinson Olver Saxton Bachus Dixon Hyde Torricelli trolling costs, we must care about preventing Ortiz Scarborough Towns Baesler Doggett Inglis Owens Schaefer Traficant the lessening the severity of injuries in motor- Baker (CA) Dooley Istook Oxley Schiff Upton cycle crashes. Baker (LA) Doolittle Jackson-Lee Packard Schroeder Vela zquez Baldacci Dornan Jefferson Pallone Schumer The best way to do that is to encourage Vento Ballenger Doyle Johnson (CT) Parker Scott States to require all riders to wear helmets. Visclosky Barcia Dreier Johnson (SD) Pastor Seastrand Current law does not force States to pass hel- Barr Duncan Johnson, E.
    [Show full text]
  • Sergeant Floyd Memorial Bridge
    INTCRSTATC 129 SERGEANT FLOYD MEMORIAL BRIDGE " . -·- . ___ :r- ::zg:~"=='---;--~-' - . _· -­ . ----. - . - ~~~~ DCD/CATIDN MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22~ 1976 ,., 11:00 A.M. PRDGRAWI MASTER of CEREMONIES DEDICATION CEREMONY WALT ER L. MoRRIS JOHN B. KEMP DEPUTY DIRECTOR-OPERATION REGIONAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR HIGHWAY DIVI SION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADM-INISTRATION IoWA DEPA fi TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INVOCATION RE VER END DR. T. J. C. ScHULDT PARTICIPANTS PASTOR 1 FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH GovER NOR RoBERT D. RAY1 IowA Sou TH Sioux CITY1 NEBRASKA GovERNOR J. JAMES ExoNJ NEBRASKA ERNEST L. ALBERTSEN} SOUTH SIOUX CITYJ WELCOME i~ EBRASKA MAYOR KEITH FERRIS1 SOUTH SIOUX CITY1 NEBRASKA TH E HONORABLE CHARLES E. STRONG MAYOR G. WILLIAM GRoss~ Sioux CITY1 IowA MA YOR --DAKOTA CITYJ NEBRASKA MAYOR RAY MANNI SERGEANT BLUFF1 IowA CHAIRMA N--SIMPCO COMMISSIONER GEORGE SHRADER 1 DAKOTA COUNTY 1 NEB RASKA MAYOR CHARLES E. STRONG} DAKOTA CITYJ NEBRASKA INTRODUCTIONS SuPERVISOR JERRY O'SuLLIVAN~ WooDBURY CouNTY1 IowA TH E HoNoRABLE G. WILLIAM GRoss MA YoR--Sioux CITY1 IowA ASSISTING THE HoN ORABLE KEITH FERRIS WIL~IAM w. AMUNDSO N JosEPH L. HoLDEFER MA YOR- -SOUTH SIOUX CITYJ NEBRASKA RALPH F. BEERMAN N MERLE KING SBURY PAUL A. BERGER DoNALD K. McKINNEY REMARKS RoBERT BLESSING DoNALD M. MEISNER THE HoNORABLE RoBERT D. RAY CoRNELius BoDINE~ JR. DONALD J I MULLIN GovERNOR--STA TE OF IowA JULES M. BUSKER RoNALD D. RA PP JOHN E. CURFMAN JAMES E. REEDE R ROBERT RI GLER LEONARD W. DIERKING KENNETH J . RoDEEN CHAIRMAN EARLE N. GRUESKIN ALBERT E. STRE ETE R IOWA DEPT, OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THE HoNO RAB LE J.
    [Show full text]
  • State Revolving Loan Fund Program
    CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND PROGRAM FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO: All Interested Citizens, Government Agencies and Public Groups In accordance with the Nebraska Clean Water State Revolving Fund environmental review process, which is based on the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental review has been performed on the proposed agency action below: PROJECT NAME: South Sioux City Industrial Wastewater Treatment System South Sioux City, Nebraska CWSRF PROJECT NUMBER: C317835 TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT: $13,300,000 EXPECTED CWSRF LOAN: $13,300,000 The city of South Sioux City is located in Dakota County in northeast Nebraska, next to the Missouri River and across from Sioux City, Iowa. The 2010 census population for South Sioux City was 13,353. That is an increase of 12 percent from the year 2000, indicating a growing community. The South Sioux City sanitary sewer system includes about 40 miles of sewers and 15 lift stations. Their wastewater is pumped under the Missouri River for treatment at the Sioux City, Iowa regional wastewater treatment facility. That treatment facility is currently undergoing major renovations to improve the level of treatment. South Sioux City is developing the Roth Industrial Park which is located south of Interstate 129. Much of the 250 acre site is undeveloped and still used for agricultural production. There are currently three food-processing facilities at the industrial park. Some expansion at these existing facilities is planned and two new industries are proposing to build facilities at the industrial park. South Sioux City proposes to construct a new wastewater treatment system to serve the industrial facilities located in the Roth Industrial Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of State Speed Laws Twelfth Edition
    DOT HS 811 769 December 2013 Summary of State Speed Laws Twelfth Edition Current as of October 8, 2012 DISCLAIMER This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade names, manufacturers’ names, or specific products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... iii OVERVIEW NARRATIVE OF KEY PROVISIONS OF STATE SPEED LAWS .............................. v Key Provisions of State Speed Laws through October 8, 2012 .............................................................. vi ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................. 1 ALASKA ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 ARIZONA ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of State Speed Laws (12Th Edition)
    DOT HS 811 769 December 2013 Summary of State Speed Laws Twelfth Edition Current as of October 8, 2012 DISCLAIMER This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade names, manufacturers’ names, or specific products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... iii OVERVIEW NARRATIVE OF KEY PROVISIONS OF STATE SPEED LAWS .............................. v Key Provisions of State Speed Laws through October 8, 2012 .............................................................. vi ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................. 1 ALASKA ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 ARIZONA ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]